REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: You learn the leader of -- without followers is simply a man taking a walk.

CRUZ: Aren`t listening to us.

Sam-I-am.

BOEHNER: The debt ceiling increase that he wants.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Claims. Period.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, (R-KY) MINORITY LEADER: From one hour to the next, they don`t know what they`ve been doing on debt ceiling.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good to have you with us tonight folks. Thanks for watching. Well, it`s taking three years for John Boehner to figure out that, you know, maybe this guy in the White House isn`t so bad after all. We`ll give it a shot. We`ll try to work with them a little bit.

Yesterday on this broadcast, we talked about trust. We talked about how the Republicans did not trust the president of the United States and he`s been bad for business that you just can`t do a deal with them on anything. Isn`t that interesting?

House Speaker John Boehner announced today that the House will vote on a clean debt increase. The vote is expected to happen in this hour. What happens in this hour, we`ll bring it to you live. There will be no strings attached to this increase.

So what`s the effect to that? Let`s go back to the market fellows. Gosh, it was a good day the office on Wall Street. And you know what, I want to point out, middle class families are doing this, OK? This is their kid`s education, this is their retirement, things are pretty good. If you`ve got a little extra cash, it`s not meant to be in Wall Street. There are good companies there that are doing good business.

So here is what happens today. Boehner decides to do something positive for the country. No strings attached. Not hostage taking, whatsoever. And look at this, we`ve got an increase in the market almost 200 points and we`re scratching close to 16,000.

Earlier today, Boehner said that it`s up to the House Democrats to pass the bill.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOEHNER: He`s the one driving up the debt and the question they`re asking is, why should I deal with his debt limit? And so the fact is, we`ll let the Democrats put the votes up. We`ll put a minimum number of votes up to get it passed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If every Democrat votes for it, could you say that 18 Republicans will vote for it?

BOEHNER: We`re going to have to find them. I`ll be one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Oh, he`ll find them. Boehner wanted a debt limit increase with concessions from the Democrats. He just didn`t have the 218 votes. Pretty good line. That`s the way he`s planned it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the first time that you have gone to the floor with a clean debt ceiling bill. Is this a recognition that post-government shutdown you don`t have the political leverage to fight the president on this?

BOEHNER: No. It`s a -- the votes (ph) will have 218 votes. And when you don`t have 218 votes, you have nothing. We`ve seen that before, and we`ve seen it again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: No American is going to harbor any ill-will against the Republicans for paying the country`s bills. It`s amazing. You`re set (ph) to get home, you got bills on the kitchen table, they`ve got a date on it, they got to be paying, so does to the country. So we find out today that Washington, look out, can actually do something.

This is the first time in Boehner`s speakership that he has not held our nation`s hostage over the debt limit. This has of course the Tea Party outrage. Here comes the big divide.

Today, the Senate Conservatives Fund called for Boehner to lose his job. They want him out. John Boehner in the statement that they were saying that John Boehner must be replaced as Speaker of the House unless we install a new leader who will actually go on offense, Democrats will never fear us and we will never have any leverage.

What is wrong with these people that it`s always us versus them? How about something good for business? The Republicans don`t even know what their talking points anymore. They run around saying you can`t do business with Obama because you can`t trust him. You can`t do business with Obama because there`s not enough trust in the market, there`s not enough trust in small business. Everything is negative. So this guy steps to the plate, "Well at least let`s -- I want to say that at least pay your bills little bit." And they`re mad at him and they want to get rid of him.

Boehner is playing defense by claiming that he didn`t have the votes. The last round of government shutdown and hostage taking by Republicans has Republicans clearly rethinking their strategy. Boys, we got an electing coming up here pretty soon. We`ve better figure this out.

The Republican cost government shutdown cost our economy $24 billion. Maybe Boehner figured out. He knows it`s not worth it. There is no doubt people blamed Republicans for this. Americans blamed Republicans for the shutdown by a 22-point margin. It`s not good. It was all over 24 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of Republicans.

Now, Boehner knows, if he pulls another stunt with the debt ceiling, he could lose control over the House and that would really screw things up. Wouldn`t it for them then they wouldn`t have any control.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are sure to be outraged by a clean debt limit increase. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently said a clean debt limit increase would be irresponsible.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCONNELL: Some of the most significant legislation passed in the last 50 years have been in conjunction with the debt ceiling.

I think for the president to ask for a claimed debt ceiling, when we have a debt the size of our economy, is irresponsible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: God forbid. If we want to pay our bills as a country, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, he of course is jumping all over the irresponsible bandwagon. He slammed a clean debt limit increase on Monday saying, President Obama is asking Congress to give him a blank check to allow him to keep maxing out the credit card without doing anything to fix the problem. I think that`s irresponsible.

But of course, this filibuster was OK, right? Look, I have some news for Senators McConnell and Cruz tonight playing games with the full faith and credit the United States` government is irresponsible and the people don`t want that to happen. A credit downgrade is irresponsible. A government shutdown is not only irresponsible but is costly.

Now, for the first time in a long time, John Boehner is doing the right thing. Luckily for America, no American votes are needed in the Senate to pass a clean debt limit increase. But Senate Republicans could still stage filibusters and slow this process down and this is where the egomaniac comes into play.

Earlier today, the House voted to reverse cuts to the military pension program. Here, here. Republicans were planning on tying this to the debt limit vote. But today, both Republicans and Democrats got together. They did the right thing by ending these cuts for veterans.

So, here we are. I`ve been pretty active day to day. Who are the winners and who are the losers? I`m not going to call them losers tonight. I`m not going to label them as losers tonight. I`m going to say that they have been untenably placed in the corner politically and this is the best available option for them and they know it. So that means, you as an American citizen, you win.

The market goes up, the American people are responding to something positive, something good in Washington happen today, and there is more things that can happen.

Here is John Boehner talking about the -- it`s a little history lesson here. If we`re talking about losers, just to point this out. Here is John Boehner talking about the 2011 debt limit deal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOEHNER: When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House, you know, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I`m pretty happy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Now, he`s pretty happy back then. He was ready to, yeah, stick it to the president.

I don`t think you`re going to see President Obama jumped out of the White House and jump in front of the cameras tonight and say, "Well, we`ve finally got Boehner to do what he had to do. We`ve finally politically cornered this guy to the point where heck his own party who wants to get rid of him as Speaker of the House. He can`t get his own people together." You know, you know what the president`s going to do? The president is going to say, "It`s about time. This is the right move. Now, let`s forward, move forward and let`s work on a jobs package. Let`s make the American people the winners here."

Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think tonight`s question. Will a clean debt limit increase the cost of Speaker Boehner`s job? Will it cost him his job? Text A for Yes and text B for No to 67622. You can always go to our blog at ed.msnbc.com. We`ll bring you the results later on in this show.

I want to go back, if I may, to this situation about brinksmanship. Who the big gamers are. Give me that market again fellows. What do you think President Obama wants to have happen with the economy? He`s not running for office again. He is willing to do a jobs package. He is willing to do immigration. He is willing to get people minimum wage increases. He wants to help the long term unemployed in this country. He wants business to thrive but just all along, everything has been no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no by the Republicans across the board.

So, one positive thing happens and we`ve seen fluctuation in the markets. Yeah. But, you know what, I remember the days back in March of 2009 when this was down to under 7,000. Gosh, if you have jumped in the market then and just held tight, you`d be -- well, I can`t say that, I`m on TV. You`d be really, really happy today if you`re here.

Here`s the point that we need to focus on. Washington is about a mood. Washington is being viewed by the American people across the country as the place where nothing gets done. And today, we got just a little, little movement, a little positivity, a little something that the president wanted all along. You can say that the president -- he`s not going to come out and say, "Well, we drew a line in the sand and this is the way it is." He didn`t do any of that. No brinksmanship coming. He`s not coming out taking a stick and put it in Boehner`s eye.

In fact, I think the president might call Boehner tonight and say, "You know, there`s a lot more where that came from if you and I work together on a jobs package. You know, these boys over there on the right, they`re trying to get rid of me anyway so you might as well work on a good jobs package so you can send your guys home with some good favor that you actually got something done in Washington." Doesn`t that make sense?

Now, one other big piece of news today which I just reported to you moment ago was the vote on the cut and make sure that they weren`t going to cut the veterans benefits and the pensions. This is no small order especially for the Republicans. The Republicans have been famous for running around the country telling everybody that they support the troops. Remember those signs after we went into Iraq and after we were really embroiled in the conflicts over there in Afghanistan and Iraq. There were all these whole signs on Republican cars around America. At least it wasn`t in the Midwest.

We support the troops. Well, who doesn`t support the troops? Well, the issue of who`s going to pay for the troops has come up from time to time. And we have not done our veterans right. Today, we did the right thing. It took political pressure to make it happen, but at least they did the right thing.

So, I will give the Republicans credits. They step to the plate and today they did live up to their rhetoric and they did support the troops. They are now telling folks that, "Gosh, if you`re in the military and you serve, we`re going to make sure that we restore what was rightfully coming to you."

I think this is a good day in America because I think we have seen something move forward. Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen, share your thoughts on Twitter @EdShow and on Facebook. We always we want to know what you think.

The House is voting on the debt limit increase right now and we will have Congressional reaction once the vote is in. Stay tuned. You`re watching the Ed Show on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: They are voting right now on the House floor and we will bring you the results of that. Certainly, they can find 18 Republicans to get this done, right? Boehner says so, we`ll see.

Time now for the Trenders, our social media, and pretty filled up as of late and grab us on facebook.com/edshow, twitter.com/edshow, and ed.msnbc.com. This is where you can find us. And on the radio, everyday noon to 3:00, Monday through Friday satellite 127 on SiriusXM. You can get my podcast at our radio website at wegoted.com.

The Ed Show social media nation decides everyday and we report every night. Here are today`s top Trenders voted on by you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The worst is there`s (ph). Business is picked over individuals.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This must be what a year of action looks like.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Joining me tonight, Dr. Corey Hebert, Professor at LSU Health Sciences Center and CEO of BlackHealthTV.com. Great to have you with us tonight doctor. I appreciate your time.

DR. COREY HEBERT, LSU HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: And from a doctor`s perspective, does it really matter if there is a delay in the mandate on the business side of things? I mean, it`s not as if people are going to go in and get a different kind of healthcare? Is that, I mean, from a provider`s standpoint, what`s the effect?

HEBERT: Well, really, I mean, we got to think about it very plainly. When I have seen in the last three months of patient that has not had a doctor in 10 ears come to me and say, "I`m so glad that ObamaCare is in effect, because now, I can see you as my physician and prevent this horrible diseases from happening to me and my family."

Look, the delay in the mandate means nothing to the actual patient and that`s the bottom line.

SCHULTZ: Well, the delay affects about 2 percent of businesses according to the Treasury Department, but of course, Republicans are just taking this and blown it right either proportion making public statements like that at the podium and what not, like they`ve done with the CBR report.

HEBERT: Sure.

SCHULTZ: So, this is par for the course.

HEBERT: Right.

SCHULTZ: But isn`t this about just getting it right and making sure that there are no hitches in the system once companies get going.

HEBERT: Well, let`s be clear. So, if you have one to 49 employees, this has nothing to do with you. You`re not affected at all, OK. If you have 50 to 99 employees, you have until 2016 to comply, OK? You have 7.8 million people that this affects and that`s only 7 percent of all the population of workers in the United States. Those are companies with close margins.

But we want to make sure that this thing is done right. So, really the facing approach might have been a better way to do this anyway with less than perfect rollout. But let`s just also be clear that if you have a giant company like greater than 100 employees, you have until 2015 to get only 75 or -- I mean, 70 percent of people compliant with your -- all your employees. And up until 2016 to get about 95 to 97 percent. So the reality is that, you know, we want to get this thing right because we`re trying to get healthcare for everyone. It`s not about the delay because the delay is actually going to help get this thing done perfectly.

SCHULTZ: Is it thinking there that the bigger companies have the resources to do it quicker?

HEBERT: Right. And they have deep pockets, I mean, you know, you`re not living margin to margin if you have a 100,000 employees with you. Those are rounding errors to you, to be honest with you. And we got to remember that, you know, this only affects really about 95 percent of companies that already -- I mean, doesn`t affect 95 percent of companies that already give insurance to their employees. So this is a small amount of people we`re talking about. But, just because it`s small amount, doesn`t mean that it`s not an important amount and important people. So, I mean, I don`t want to belittle that at all, but, we have to think about this. The 95 percent of employees already give their employees insurance.

SCHULTZ: Can the affordable healthcare law afford to have anymore delays?

HEBERT: Well.

SCHULTZ: 2016, we`ve got a presidential election. I mean, it would seem to me, this is like the third time or the second time that -- I think it`s the third time -- the delay has been pushed back. We`re going to 2016 -- I mean, this is quite a long time to implement a healthcare law. It would seem to me that it wouldn`t be any problem at this point to implement it.

HEBERT: Well, I agree with you. But you know what though, the GOP is going to blow all this stuff out of proportion especially when election time. I mean, when I took this morning, I thought the GOP was going to blow that out of proportion. They`re going to do that and that`s the bottom line. But the point is that, it doesn`t matter because they can graph with all the straws that they want. I stand at the ready to implement this healthcare reform law with -- in any adversarial impact that people they bring to me. And my colleagues, we stand at the ready to fight this because we can`t handle another delay. But if there is one, it doesn`t matter because.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

HEBERT: . the bottom line is healthcare for all.

SCHULTZ: Whatever happened with those junk policy stories. Those folks must have jumped back into the market and got some, and by the way, we haven`t heard from them lately.

HEBERT: No. You haven`t and I`ve been looking for them on Fox but they keep deepen (ph) and diving and I keep missing them, you know what I mean? That`s not the case because I`m telling you, we see patients that come to us now that have had, you know, blood glucoses, you know, that -- these diabetic patients have blood glucoses over 200 for two and three years that never got a chance to see a doctor.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

HEBERT: Now they can. And that`s the bottom line here.

SCHULTZ: But the story that was out there several months ago was that the people were getting notices in their mail and they were losing their insurance. And the reason why they we`re loosing is because they had junk policies. The White House taking the high road not classifying it as that, leaving that to the media to figure this thing out. There are now federal standards that have to be met.

HEBERT: Right.

SCHULTZ: And as predicted, and I said that there would be five million people who would be affected and signed up with ObamaCare before March 1st and we are closing in on that number, are we not?

HEBERT: Absolutely.

SCHULTZ: The negative stories are now absent and we`re closing in on that number, correct?

HEBERT: Absolutely. And I really think that that delay that you`re talking with the junk policies was a canary in the coal mine because what it did was really wake people up to say, "Wait a minute, my insurance was really junk. I had no idea." And now, they have a good policy because they were able to understand the whole -- the rhythm of all (ph) that was actually being fair to them for so many years.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. Well, if you`re a company with under 50 employees, and you want your insurance -- you want your employees to have insurance, you don`t have to give it to them, but you -- now, you can say, "Hey, go get in the federal exchange. It`s really, really good." And if you`re fortunate enough to live in the state with a state exchange, that`s going to be even better. This is the beauty of it all for small businesses in America.

Dr. Corey Hebert, great to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time. Thanks so much.

HEBERT: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: We are following the House floor on the debt limit increase. We`ll have reaction coming up. Stay tuned. You`re watching the Ed Show on MSNBC. We`re right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show, Ask Ed segment. Do I think they`ll pass it? Yeah, I do. We`re still waiting on the House vote on the debt ceiling. Guess what, they just got the 220, it passes.

Now, we are -- we love hearing from our viewers obviously in this segment Ask Ed. And our first question comes from Al. He wants to know "Would a single payer campaign contribution system work better than what we have now?"

Al, are you talking about campaign finance reform or you`re talking about healthcare? If you`re talking about healthcare, obviously, single-payer system would be a heck of a lot better for the country across the board. If you`re talking about campaign contribution in public financing of campaigns, wow, we can only dream about that.

Let me tell you this. If the Democrats ever got control of the house, first thing they would do would be minimum wage, the second thing they would do would be immigration reform. You can take it to the bank. There`s a lot more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay tuned.

MANDY DRURY, CNBC ANCHOR: I`m Mandy Drury with your CNBC Market Wrap. Reassuring it was from the fed boosting stocks today. The DOW surging 192 points, the S and P adding 19, and the NASDAQ up by 42.

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen testified earlier before the House Financial Services Committee and she said the Central Bank would continue to take steps to scale back stimulus, but that the interest rates would remain lower (ph).

Meanwhile, on the earnings front, CVS came up reporting better than expected earnings in their shares rising nearly 3 percent.

That`s it from CNBC for now. We`re first in business worldwide.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. We`ve been following the vote on the House floor, it`s official, it is a clean debt limit increase and it passes, it`s a one-year extension and it passes with 221 votes.

Turning now, you know, I`m not real comfortable with the idea of revenge politics. I`m sure most politicians keep track of, you know, who`s on their side, who`s opposed them throughout their career. It`s all part of the political game I guess. But revelations from a new book about Hillary Clinton are raising some eyebrows on the left.

"HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton" hits the book shelves today and it offers a detailed look into Clinton`s so-called "hit list".

According to the book, aides on Clinton`s failed 2008 presidential campaign which is history kept a spreadsheet of Democrats they felt had betrayed her. It`s a loyalty issue I guess by supporting President Obama. Get over it.

We`re not talking about your standard list here folks. They had this down to some people could argue a science. People were ranked on a scale from one to seven. Friends got a one, those who betrayed Clinton got a seven. Democrats like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and Claire McCaskill topped the list.

The Hillary Hit List reminds me of something I witnessed really back in my high school days. I want to share the story with you. I was a young quarterback coming out of high school going to college, so I went to Joe Namath`s football camp at the sixth mark ski lodge in Wilmington, Vermont back in 1971.

Joe`s -- I mean he was a great. I mean he still is. He`s still alive, good guy. He`s was on the Super Bowl Sunday and everything else. He was the star in a football camp. I want to be quarter back and I`m going to Joe Namath`s football camp.

When we were there a story came out that Richard Nixon President of United States had put out an enemies list and Joe Namath was on the enemies list.

I remember Walter Cronkite calling the sixth mark ski lodge looking to talk to Joe Namath wanting to know what its like to be on the president`s hit list and the enemies list is what is what called then. And he didn`t understand why and I heard some conversations about, this was totally puzzling and of course Joe got a lot of press about it, CBS and a crew up there, they did a story on it and what not.

And that`s always robbed me wrong. I didn`t understand why. I understand how politicians are going to remember people that don`t support them, but come on Hillary tell us this isn`t true. Let`s move forward. You didn`t tell me that the people that supported Obama you don`t want if he run for president?

Joining me now our Rapid Response Panel, The Grio`s Joy Reid and also Connie Schultz of Nationally Syndicated Columnist and a Contributor to PARADE magazine, great to have both of you with us tonight.

JOY REID, THE GRIO: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: Joy, what do you make of this? I don`t like lists like this. I like everybody on the same page, everybody getting along.

REID: Right. I mean -- and I think you said it earlier. I don`t think it is all that unusual for politicians necessarily to keep track the sort of who`s on our side and who is not.

But you have to go back and remember that in 2008, first of all, the Clintons were somewhat surprised by the idea that this young guy that Barack Obama so new in the Senate was running against them. But even more surprised that he was winning, right? And that campaign became incredibly rancorous because you had two politicians who both laid claim to the same base.

The Clintons really felt particularly the African-American base was going to be there. She was winning in the polls with African-Americans in the beginning, until Barack Obama started to win primaries and caucuses. He won Iowa. It shocked the Clintons.

And then, she went to him. She said OK, we`re back on track. Then they go down to South Carolina. It is like wait a minute we`re going to lose South Carolina, something that they would have taken for granted when they started that raise. That raise was so contentious and the Clintons were so really shocked and really I think thrown off base and thrown off guard by people like a Teddy Kennedy, not backing them when Bill Clinton had spent so much of his presidency cultivating a relationship. He saw himself as sort of in the mantel of young JFK.

So, I think that it really burned them so much that it was hard for them to let it go. So, I kind of see it more in the context of how rancorous and how bitter. I mean people forget now because they`re on the same side, right?

Hillary Clinton became the Secretary of the State to Barack Obama, but it was one of the most bitter primaries in the Democratic Party since Teddy Kennedy .

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

REID: . versus Jimmy Carter.

SCHULTZ: Connie Schultz, is this standard operating procedure just political warfare and that`s just the way it is?

CONNIE SCHULTZ, NATIONALLY SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, I want to touch upon the Nixon analogy which I don`t think actually is an analogy, because Nixon actually had, you know, the tax as the people audited. He had detective stalking people. He had so-called plumbers breaking into offices. That`s a hit list.

I am -- I just -- the focus available today, I just started reading it in preparation for the show. This is only chapter one of a book, the introductory -- the narrative introductory is actually quite positive judging from many of the reviews including the New York Times review of this book.

My understanding is the only retribution that I can glean from this which is old news by the way, is that Bill Clinton went in and campaign against some of these Democrats in primary races.

I have to tell you, you know, I`m married to Senator Sherrod Brown. We had dinner with Hilary in September after the primary season was over. And it was an off-the-record dinner. It all remained that way.

But I do feel free in saying this. There was not one word of animosity toward Barack Obama for whom at that point she was ready to campaign. I think she was campaigning at that point, nor was there any mention of anybody that she was angry with, that she had put it behind her.

I think it is typical for staff members in particular to be list keepers and one of the things I think is so unfortunate about this new round of stories is that this surfaced to so many campaign staffers who would never talk out of school, would never create mythologies out of campaigns to hurt the people they once worked for.

This sounds to me -- I mean there`s nobody easier to find that a former campaign staff are willing to talk anonymously to somebody who is writing a book or story about the person they used to work for and I do think they have to consider that in that context.

SCHULTZ: Do you think that Hillary Clinton should address this down the road?

C. SCHULTZ: I think there`s a lot she has to address. Understand I am not a full throttle defender.

SCHULTZ: Sure.

C. SCHULTZ: And Hillary, just last week I wrote that, I`m tired of all this fund raising already that`s going on, on her behalf which she could stop in a heartbeat if she wanted to, because it could potentially hurt midterm campaigns right now and Democrats are trying to keep the Senate.

I also think it`s a really bad idea to admit publicly that you haven`t driven a car since 1996. And what I would like to see her do is hit the road quite literally and reacquaint herself with people who would like to welcome her back.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

C. SCHULTZ: She`s got a lot of work to do. Do I think she`s going to need to address this? Yeah, I hope she does, because I think the answer is pretty simple. It`s hard when you think you can have the support of certain people and they don`t support you and it takes you a while to get over it.

But a lot of time has passed and quite a career she`s had since that race. Let`s keep in mind she was secretary of state for four years and I think that all of this adds perspective to this discussion that really is not new as it first came out in 2008.

SCHULTZ: What about when you -- well, I got to say this, the reason why I put the name of analogy to it with Nixon is because of the surprise element, what? I`m on a list? What do you mean I`m on a list? I mean, you know.

And so, I think that when people find out that they might be on Hillary`s list if there is one or if this is erroneously report in the book or whatever it is, I will say this that her campaign aides were a little arrogant in 2008.

C. SCHULTZ: Yeah.

SCHULTZ: And they -- in fact in many cases, they were not nice and I think that Hillary needs to take a real close look at the attitude of the people around her because if it`s a repeat of 2008, they`re going to -- they, collectively, they`re going to turn people off. And so that`s why I think it is a very important story but then firstly, I don`t want to see the other guys win, OK.

C. SCHULTZ: Right.

SCHULTZ: And I think that Obama people need to be on with Hillary Clinton in a big way. Joy, your thoughts on that.

REID: No. I think that it is now sort of become sort of common currency in politics that the Clintons and the Obamas have sort of won.

But there was a lot of bitterness left behind by that campaign, you know. There are a lot of, you know, I`ll to talk to some African-Americans who still have not quite forgotten 100 percent the things that Bill Clinton said in South Carolina.

Look, there were bitterness that wasn`t just staffed. Bill Richardson, Former Governor of New Mexico, definitely felt and has said publicly that after not endorsing Hillary Clinton, he felt himself sort of frozen out by the Clintons. So the ranker was real. This isn`t a fiction. It wasn`t just staff. I think that the principles got over it first before their surrogates and before the staff that as usually happens in campaigns, the principles usually can rise above it more than the others.

But the -- it`s very important to Hillary Clinton if she runs that she has not just pretend or seeming cohesion with Obama but that she has very real cohesion with President Obama and with the people who support him because she needs the identical demographics that President Obama had in 2008 and 2012, she needs those demographics to be essentially the same.

And so I think it`s very important to project an image that this is past. It`s very important for her.

SCHULTZ: And Connie, there is something about all hands on deck. I mean there`s going to be a ton of money thrown out by the Republicans to whoever their candidate is, they want the midterms really bad, they want the senate really bad. And this idea that the largest super PAC isn`t going to bypass the midterms and go all for Hillary in 16 when she`s not even a declared candidate. What`s the upside of that?

C. SCHULTZ: There is no upside. I think it`s appalling and I was really surprised to learn that. And I said a moment ago, Hillary Clinton can stop a lot of this immediately if she wants to. I think she should stop saying she`s not even thinking about the presidency right now. Nobody believes that. We`re not idiots.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

C. SCHULTZ: We would hope she`s thinking about it. This is something you give a lot of thought to. But it is disappointing indeed when there`s so much at stake with the Senate. I`d like to remind everyone who picks the Supreme Court justices.

REID: You know, and I`ll take it one further, Hillary Clinton and those who support her should get out there and start helping Democrats who are running for reelection. She should be out there increasing her currency with these potential and sitting senators et cetera. Get out there and 2014, 2016 comes after.

SCHULTZ: Yeah, no doubt. Joy Reid, Connie Schultz great to you with us tonight. Thanks so much.

C. SCHULTZ: Thank you.

REID: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: We`ll be right back with Congressman John Larson with his reaction at tonight`s breaking news on the debt ceiling and has passed in the House. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Thanks for staying with us tonight. The House of Representatives has just passed a clean debt bill by a vote of 221 to 201 for a year long extension of the debt limit. No strings attached, no hostage taking, no ransom, it`s clean. We`re going to be able to pay our bills.

For more, let me bring in Congressman John Larson of Connecticut. Congressman, good to have you with us tonight.

John, what does this mean .

REP. JOHN LARSON, (D) CONNECTICUT: Good to be with you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: . why did Boehner do this no strings attached? What do you think?

LARSON: Well, first of all, Ed, as you said at the outset of the program, this is good news for America and while we`re not going to nominate the speaker for profiles and courage yet, it does consistently portray that the speaker recognizes that he has to govern.

SCHULTZ: Sure.

LARSON: And when you`re in the situation where you have a body of people probably about 40 or 50 who are just hell been and obstructing the nation at every turn, that dog don`t hunt anymore. And Boehner and their leadership recognize that and that`s why they went forward with this vote. I think they feel they can put this behind them but it also sends a message about the deep fissures that exist within the Republican Party. And I say that not to make a political point but that`s not good for the county as .

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

LARSON: . we`re going forward.

SCHULTZ: But they want to throw him out.

LARSON: We got what we need.

SCHULTZ: They want to throw -- they want him out is that going to happen?

LARSON: I don`t think so because nobody else wants that job. Because who wants to have a job where you have no powers? I mean he put not one, not two, not three, but several different proposals in front of them. It would have been that this for the first time but this is several times. John Boehner`s an institutionalist as are a lot of the people here in Congress who want to see things get done.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

LARSON: But you have this element and especially amplified in the Senate. Watch what they do in the Senate. Watch Ted Cruz now say, "Well, we`re going to have to have 60 votes." Again, holding the country hostage. 60 votes. No fifth grader in America thinks that it takes 60 votes to make sure the nation pays its debts, that we do not renege on the full faith and credit of America.

Today was a good day for the Congress. I am glad that we`re able to put this behind us. It`s great victory for the president of United States. His persistency in this has been -- he`s been stalwart in this and I want to commend him as well.

SCHULTZ: So you don`t think the pots and pans that are going to go back in forth on the Tea Party banging him back and forth one another making noise.

LARSON: I definitely .

SCHULTZ: . you don`t think that`s going to make any difference? You think that Boehner will be the speaker of the House? They`re not going to be able o remove him?

LARSON: I think he will be the speaker of the House. I do think that there will be a lot of banging of the pots, et cetera, but who are they going to replace him .

SCHULTZ: Sure.

LARSON: . with? And that`s, you know, you can`t beat somebody with .

SCHULTZ: And .

LARSON: . a nobody. And you know, take a look a round, how many people are volunteering for that job when you can`t get a cohesive body together. It`s very narrow margins there. And 40 or 50 are voting in lockstep against you on everything.

SCHULTZ: And do you think quickly, John, the calculation was made that the last shutdown and the $24 billion cost to the taxpayer really hurt the Republicans and they didn`t want to go down that road again?

LARSON: Exactly.

SCHULTZ: OK.

LARSON: The political calculus, let`s put this behind us and let`s get back.

SCHULTZ: OK.

LARSON: As you pointed out last night, let`s try to focus on this trust issue which of course as you pointed out as bogus too.

SCHULTZ: It is. Congressman John Larson of Connecticut, great to have you with us tonight.

LARSON: Always good to be with you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Something good happened in Washington today. How about that?

Still to come, Rush Limbaugh attacks the college football player who has come out as gay. A former NFL player joins me tonight to support Michael Sam. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST AND POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Here comes the first announcement gay guy. Hey, cool men. Go for it. Why is it heroic for a gay man to play football?

Because the media wants a gay player to succeed. OK. You`re halfway there. Why does the media want a gay player to succeed?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

The top NFL prospect, one of them on the defensive side of the football, best player out of the SEC, Michael Sam is facing a firestorm of intolerant commentary offered up by Rush Limbaugh. Intolerance and scrutiny is nothing new to the NFL.

Over the summer, Former Minnesota Viking Punter Chris Kluwe said his support for a gay rights activist cost him his job. Contrary to those allegations, Vikings owner Zygi Wilf released a statement in support of Michael Sam saying, "His comments will have no impact on how the Vikings view Michael as a football player or as a person. If a player, he can help us win, we will warmly welcome him as part of the team and provide an accepting, respectful and supportive environment to help him succeed in the NFL."

Meantime, retired wide receiver Donte Stallworth made his point of view crystal clear in a series of tweets. "If any NFL team can`t handle the media coverage . " he wrote ". of drafting Sam, then your team is already a loser on the field . let me tell you why . "

Well, he`s here to tell us why. He spent 10 years in the NFL, he was with the New England Patriots when they were in Super Bowl 42. Donte Stallworth joins us tonight here on the Ed Show.

Donte, thanks for your time. Why are .

DONTE STALLWORTH, FORMER NFL PLAYER: Thanks for having me on, Ed.

SCHULTZ: . why are people raising the question about handling the media coverage of drafting Sam as a player?

STALLWORTH: Well, you know, in the NFL there`s always -- people are always trying to stay away from "distractions". But I`ve been on teams before that have had major possibilities and the potential to destroy a whole season. Early on in 2007 when I played for the New England Patriots, we had the whole Spygate thing, we had --we were going -- we were shooting for 16 and zero, and those weren`t distractions. Yes, we discussed it in the locker room and we talked about it amongst each other. We maybe even, you know, talked about it a little more than Bill liked us to at the time.

But we kept it all in the house and everything was fine. There were no distractions and, you know, and that`s the same thing that other organizations should be able to do too. I mean distractions are what you make them to be out -- what you make them out to be and .

SCHULTZ: Is .

STALLWORTH: . there should be no reason for that to be a distraction.

SCHULTZ: It is going to take a special kind of chemistry to take in the first gay player in the NFL because there`s going to be so much attention? I mean you played on a number of different teams in the NFL over 10 years. Some teams have different levels of maturity, do they not? Is it going to take a special team to do this?

STALLWORTH: Yeah, it is. And sometimes there are teams that are very immature but that`s just life. I mean you put a bunch of, you know, young 21, 22 year old guys together with no leadership in the locker room and really no leadership in the management then things can go wrong and I`ve been on teams of that nature before. But at the same time I`ve been on teams, like I said, with the New England Patriots, where you had guys like Junior Seau, Tom Brady, Teddy Bruschi that really held that locker room together.

And also in Baltimore too with John Harbaugh, the way he controls his team, the way he runs that organization over there with Mr. Basha Di (ph). They could definitely handle a Michael Sam situation. But there`s not any excuse for you to .

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

STALLWORTH: . make, that would be a distraction.

SCHULTZ: So clearly there are teams that you think are better equipped to go through this than other teams? Because what was interesting is a player personnel assistant anonymously told Sports Illustrated that he thought it would chemically imbalance an NFL locker room and meeting room. What`s your response to that?

STALLWORTH: Well, it is what they perceive it to be and that`s only, like I said, that`s only because of a lack of leadership in the locker room and a lack of leadership in the management. And if the owner comes from the very top and says that, "I want this player on my team and I don`t want any problems."

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

STALLWORTH: Then it should be left at that. And if there -- if you can`t do that then you`re not going to be successful in the field anyway.

SCHULTZ: Sure.

STALLWORTH: It`s not going to matter.

SCHULTZ: So what is -- I think really interesting about this is that this guy could be a first rounder or second rounder and that`s a lot of money.

Our NFL owners are going to put a lot of money into what some might call social engineering to see if this can work for the first time in the NFL and that really -- and there`s no question about his talent, I mean he`s the best player in the conference in the South Eastern Conference. I mean .

STALLWORTH: Yeah.

SCHULTZ: . we`re not talking about a borderline guy. This is a guy who can flat out play the game. That`s what makes it so interesting on all fronts.

Donte Stallworth, I appreciate your time tonight. Thanks so much for joining us.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.END

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2014 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2014 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>